FDEP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what information is included ('constructors and fields') but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential performance considerations, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with distinguishing context given the many sibling tools.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' means beyond constructors and fields, doesn't describe the return format, and provides no context about the tool's role within the broader ecosystem of type analysis tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'constructors and fields' which aligns with the boolean parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about what those details include or why they might be useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific type'), specifying what details are included ('constructors and fields'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_details' or 'get_type_dependencies', which could cause confusion about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_class_details', 'get_type_dependencies', and 'list_types', the agent has no indication of whether this is for basic type metadata, structural details, or relationship analysis. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.